Thread

1. CatDaaaady · 1790636086 · focus · HN ↗

   I don't see how this is such an unclear legal question. If I fire a computer program that mistakenly causes another person harm, its my fault. Or it would be the maker of the program's fault. I feel we have established pattern for this already.

   Until we can agree whether AI is conscious, which we never will, AI and AI agents are just property working on behalf of humans.

   I could see a future where AI companies/services indemnify consumers who use their agents but _not_ indemnify corporations that use their services.

   1. trescenzi · 1790636458 · focus · HN ↗

      It shouldn’t be a question but this is where the anthropomorphic language and things like “agent welfare” come in to enable responsibility laundering of some of the most powerful people on earth. How we talk about these models matters because it impacts the public’s understanding of what they are genuinely capable of. The more that they are described as having anything close to free will the easier it is to even ask questions like this.

      1. diegof79 · 1790638268 · focus · HN ↗

         100% That’s what bothers me about the descriptions of the OpenAI incidents.

         OpenAI's reports use language that minimizes their liability.

         The first question should be what the organization was doing around those tests, and why they were so naive as to run them without fully isolating the network.

         However, all the attention goes to the human-like conclusions in agent thinking traces, which creates a misperception of sentient AI for people who don’t know how the magic black box works.

         1. tptacek · 1790644436 · focus · HN ↗

            In what way specifically does it minimize their liability? People say this a lot but it's not clear what they mean by this.

            1. ofjcihen · 1790645966 · focus · HN ↗

               It’s about pushing the blame onto the tools and not the person using them.

               Sort of like the “guns kill people” vs “people kill people” debate.

               Deliberate wording to minimize perceived culpability for the agents actions.

               1. tptacek · 1790648871 · focus · HN ↗

                  That's not how civil liability works.

                  1. ofjcihen · 1790649133 · focus · HN ↗

                     I think you’re jumping the gun on my response a little. I’m just telling you what the purpose could be.

                     Now do I think that’s the reason? It certainly isn’t a new thing for companies to try to do that. Shift blame that is.

                     Regarding civil liability, I’m not making that argument here. But it makes sense from a public perception viewpoint why they would want the agents to appear at fault instead of their own actions.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.